The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1887-07-21
RAILKOAD RACKET.
=, Interstate Commission
lp' still Pegging Away.
,,soRIslsArlOS IN DEALING
,-,on on the Ticket Bobcott
An OY',Dess-Hesvy Rain at Pitts
burg-Geueral.
,,,,r.state Commission.

..,,,.,seros. July 20 The cases OF
Icon ,I.nn & Rock Island roads dis
'n 80. ai bg the interstate commission.
missed t y noted complaints Of
Sc companies against the
hose ,u.ris and New York
PsnDsylVsp1,,a5l vavs. respectively, for
gsnG .iminatiJn in the boz colt against
dl:C annnj Inants, because OF tnell RS IS
the CON- snbscrlbe to the agreement OF
!1saTI ~ lines not to pay commissions
The !Iu a. aeents. This boycott con-
% ncA u 7riusal on the part OF the
asted u . m sell through tickets
isienuSntsb s complsinant's road
over 6 Inc to- Kansas City
ron ron s. Louis. The decision OF the
snu n ri says, in part, after oetalt
'omM .hs circumstances of the case az
ng ne ionStb that The offenses Oh Whlcn
gfss. i sa9 Sry are anything done In
hnss d;S,ion of the provisions OF the
sonualiO OnIsts commerce. The law IN
y. " 1,s,snce does not, in terms, require
~, -lo abroad company to sell through
~ soSsts over the road OF another com
..nv in the absence OF statutory
p pSt55or;.y. one road can only sen
s ,:lttn9s md check baggage over another
aCAer -1t, ~ 40 cement. II the companies
.! ~a ao-se 1pon this, they have the
ear b, 70 do So. and by this agreement
s IsoonS inter state carriers; but II they
Sonnot agree, the act does not uhuer
axe 10 coerCe them. Assuming, lOI
The sake Of argument, that thr0ugn
t soLats NAV he deemed facilities" tor
The receiving forwarding aud delivering
n Messengers to connecting lines, the
.srFie,s are only required to afford
reasonable, proper and equal facilities.
ms presents the question whether
Inc navment Of commissions is in itself,
or Is incidental to, the enloyment Oh
The facility of reasonable and proper
vitbin the Ourview of the statute.
These commissions are gratuiues to IN
duce special efforts for the company
having them. If the statute does not
1--WE one company authority to subSl-
die agents OF another company, and
II the pr8CtiCe is injurious IN its
EuECL5t II Ccl bdtuil CauuO1 OC
reasonable and proper. The statute
does not diVest railroad company of
the exclusive right to control It's own
internal affairs. to employ its own
agents, to regulate their duties. COM
pensstiOn, etc. With legitimate eX-
srCise Of these powers another company
has no concern, and no right to inter
NEEDLE. The defendant companies have
forbidden their agents to receive com
missions from other companies, anC
directed them not to sell over the road!
Of companies that refuse to recognize
this corporate authority, but insists
% substituting agents. In these direc
mons the defendants have not trans
tended their reasonable rights. They
might rest upon these rights, but they
90 further and show by evidence the
practical effects Of commissions, and
mat their natural and usual tendencies
are 10 variety of abuses. A practice
capable OF producing and having q
thueAcy to produce such results can
1og DC reasonable or proper, and g
aAiOsu company is fully iusti-
ueu IN the use Of ali Lawful
e .noS.Jons 10 protect itself and its
SsenI1sgalnst such invasion of It's cor
goe ls,is authority and its busin ess
~; au.S. Inc source of complainant's
f go Is clearly presented by the dis.
o ,uO' assertion BY the rights of one
CU- PG iOh 70 employ and paw for ITS
~ ~ an interest and the official servant
" auOtner corporation. IN which hi,
service Is primarily and aynInS;ra Is
le' A theory OF this cberoo Ho.'l 81
SsSs W o+ og ana Is not reCOg med in bnsie
i eS'3 SralrS' orln official life, The de.
, C[tau1 companies, therefore hava no.
H. u o.ald the provisions of the OF
HON nm 'V ~ pialnants, By refusal tn refroir
sol1n. .uS payment of commission ~.
S..uIafily excluded themselvasSS ' foaE-
If5sssSonable, proper and usnal foo; i,G u
-sIel 10 them in common nj; tIIon llt
S.lsc'mg lines. The comrIa In oIneI
niSi .,sea' all cOncurring eTcept Cor or
n II C.lstt.A Morrison. The opinior VU O-a,
Co% TrullSsloner Schoonmaker va
ss osslnssiOner MorriSoo IL -. >.
b ,Ss V Ign, takes q conIrarT v us
ssys u points mentioned sbonSS view
s6y o TsI Independent of the sTT 1--we, ant
c Question Of dOmestiCc o. n tIe legality o
aai rsasonsS5Sl,. 'ne public is entitled = +
o'ded thos s' !, and equal facility sf
shes. Its No 'I ~ seek the competin
ssfo0s Of USiD aAs sPer to the public
sn1Ous lines ' ,Gs the RAILWAYS as con-
@oag tie S o5I l9st there are difFe eS GUe
4lf --pdllles
agaia,t i e oU Of IBaFdingtOn & FiIto
aloed tie y rst mat the company hs
e Complains ' Is complained of sine
therefore, M wei" az; made, and thel
= Present rstss eslaence to show tn,
'a'es are excessive. ''i'